Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian S:

...
1. Whether any denominations or prominent church leaders have publicly endorsed young earth creationism?
...

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by stigofthedump:
This post may reveal some of my church background, but what's the alternative to God making the earth in 7 days? Isn't that what the bible says?

Go gentle with the reply's, I'm new to the ship

---

Evolution Have a look on this thread for some views on it all.

Tom (being as gentle as possible )

--------------------
My allotment blog

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by chukovsky:

However in my pursuit of truth I have met a shocking number of British, relatively intellectual Christians who are not particularly inerrantist on other matters but who just say "oh well, I haven't really thought about it, I suppose the earth was created and I don't see how evolution can be compatible with belief in God".

---

That's the sort of attitude I was thinking of.

How many of them, if any, have any serious biological education? Or perhaps I should say Natural History, as it is nowadays p[ossible to get a degree in Molecular Biology or whatever without actually studying any real biology.

What I have never met - though I have read one or two Americans - is someone who claims any background in natural history (AKA real biology ) and holds an informed YEC position.

That went out of serious consideration well before Darwin.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Seventh Day Adventists not only endorse it, they have an institute devoted to it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by chukovsky:

However in my pursuit of truth I have met a shocking number of British, relatively intellectual Christians who are not particularly inerrantist on other matters but who just say "oh well, I haven't really thought about it, I suppose the earth was created and I don't see how evolution can be compatible with belief in God".

These from people who would always try and work out proper translations of the Bible, including learning the original languages, and would want to know all about NT culture and the literary style of the OT, and rely on modern medicine (which itself relies on a biology that has its roots in evolutionary theory).

---

While not agreeing with their opinions one way or the other, I actually understand "blind faith" that they may be using to hold those opinions. Even the most astute have their own blind spots that they have not found the time to research for faith comparative purposes.

I certainly think that everyone (including myself) that holds forth on the Ship has tried to "work out" every opinion they might have here.

NOT.

Alan,

Very interesting that SDAs/McCready was the originator of YEC. Are you sure about that?

I have seen some very old geology books with creationism included but I don't know or remember if they predate SDAs.

Just curious.

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by chukovsky:
I've mostly met Americans or Germans (Assemblies of God missionaries including some from the former East Germany, quite a combination) who are proselytising young earth creationists.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Alan,

Very interesting that SDAs/McCready was the originator of YEC. Are you sure about that?

I have seen some very old geology books with creationism included but I don't know or remember if they predate SDAs.

---

quote:

---

Almost the only writers to advocate literal recent creationism during this period, however, were to be found amongst the Lutherans and Seventh Day Adventists - no doubt partly because their respective founders, Martin Luther and Ellen G. White, had taught six-day creationism and a worlwide flood
(A History of Modern Creationism 1984.)

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Assemblies of God believers hold that the Genesis account should be taken literally.

---

What a shocker. Literally. Can you imagine the liberal Assemblies who now let women wear lipstick in addition to eyebrow pencil take a literal position on this?

But in typical Assemblies fashion, they don't just let it go. They drill and they drill and they grind and they grind until you want to run screaming out into the night. Oops...Purgatory...must...breathe...deeply. They have hung their ass so far out on the line that no one in the church hierarchy can possibly bring it up and if some day some "definitive" proof for evolution came along they would really be scrambling.

quote:

---

Ultimately for most Christians it comes to this: if God is not Author and Creator of all that is, life offers little meaning or purpose for mankind. In evolution there is no judgment, and therefore no punishment or reward for the way we live.

---

How's that for an airtight case? We need Hell for the bad people and Heaven for the good people and evolution takes it away. It must be wrong. If you want to take it from there, you can read the Assemblies position on Eternal Punishment. Hell is still so very very central to the official church position it is sad. I understand that many clergy and lay people don't like it, but as usual the hierarchy painted themselves into a corner a long time ago and they will not come out for fear of inconsistency and admission of wrong. They will be supporting creationism and the "next week imminence" of the Rapture in Star Date 5594323.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christine:
Jugular, While some campus groups may espouse creationism - not many, one would hope - I can assure you that the Student Christian Movement (SCM) most certainly does not. SCM is liberal, ecumenical, radical indeed. It may surprise you to learn that any student Christian groups can be so described, most seem to be at the other end of the spectrum, but SCM is different and functioning at a campus near you

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by adsarf:
My off-topic point is just to say that actually scientists *do* in practice develop theories and then look for justifications of them.

---

quote:

---

Modern medicine *isn't* really based on modern science (its more by way of being a craft discipline informed by some aspects of science in some areas)

---

quote:

---

and evolutionary theory has holes you could drive a double-decker bus through.

---

quote:

---

It may be the best (scientific) theory currently available but that doesn't make it true

---

quote:

---

and the rationalist(and sometimes explicitly anti-Christian) propaganda that has been built up around Darwin'original speculations deserves less respect.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Of course. But the important thing is they discard those theories (hypotheses is a better word) if the evidence does not support them. Creationism does not do that; it is sure of its conclusion

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by markporter:

quote:

---

Of course. But the important thing is they discard those theories (hypotheses is a better word) if the evidence does not support them. Creationism does not do that; it is sure of its conclusion

---

I think that both sides of the debate are equally guilty in this respect, whatever evidence is found, they find a way of fitting it into their theory.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

I suggest they start "properly interpretting" this.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by markporter:

quote:

---

I suggest they start "properly interpretting" this.

---

hmmm, well it doesn't mean a thing to me, so I wouldn't have a clue.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Priest:
As I've said before, creationism and evolution are easy bedfellows in the melting pot of Gods variable time(a day being as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day), this is basically the premiss of 6 day creation subscribed to by many people. Alan I get the impression you subscribe to something like this?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Priest:
As I've said before, creationism and evolution are easy bedfellows in the melting pot of Gods variable time(a day being as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day), this is basically the premiss of 6 day creation subscribed to by many people.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Royal Peculiar:
whether or not man is a separately created being or shares a common ancestor with other animals.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Priest:
[QUOTE]
I do not see why God would not do something similar albeit on a much larger scale.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by markporter:
although I think http://www.grisda.org/origins/13009.htm may show a creationist way of interpreting it.....(I could be mistaken because biology and genetics really isn't my field.....try putting music in it somewhere and I may be more knowledgable)

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Priest:
[QUOTE]
I do not see why God would not do something similar albeit on a much larger scale.

---

The objection to this is that the evidence strongly suggests otherwise.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by markporter:
although I think http://www.grisda.org/origins/13009.htm may show a creationist way of interpreting it...)

---

No, it doesn't. It mentions the apparent fusion, but makes no attempt whatsoever to tackle it.

It makes a logical error. It lumps together all the chromosomal similarity observations, derives hypotheses for some of them, and then acts as if the derived hypotheses account for all of them.

---

quote:

---

It is possible that chromosomal similarities have different explanations in different groups of animals. It this is true, then one must be cautious in using chromosomal comparisons to determine relationships. Nevertheless, chromosomal data can serve as a useful check on data from other sources.

Hypothesis 3, that chromosomal similarities are due to random chromosomal rearrangements which happen to produce similar banding patterns, is not reasonable, for reasons discussed above. Hypothesis 2, that chromosomal similarities are exclusively the result of common ancestry, does not seem consistent with creation theory and does not seem a necessary conclusion from the scientific data. The fact that very large genomic rearrangement does not seem to affect morphology, and yet animals with different body plans ("Bauplan") appear to have very different kinds of karyotypes suggests to this writer that some different groups had different starting points and do not share a common ancestry.

Hypotheses 1 and 4 seem consistent with both creation theory and the evidence available. It seems likely that species which were morphologically similar were created with similar chromosomes, reflecting their genetic similarity. It is evident that large changes have occurred in chromosomes since creation. These changes have often resulted in karyotypic divergence and have contributed to the multiplication of species.

Chromosomal rearrangements seem to occur so frequently that one would expect to find very little banding homeology between species which supposedly diverged long ages ago, such as the marsupials. The existence of numerous banding homeologies can be explained as the result of a common design which has been preserved only because a relatively short time has been available for changes to occur.

How much anatomical change has occurred since creation is still an unanswered question. Chromosomal comparisons suggest that new genera may have arisen since creation, for example among the antelopes which share a Y/autosome translocation (Benirschke et al. 1980). Whether larger changes have occurred cannot be determined from chromosomal studies.

---